Kansas still refuses to recognize same-sex marriages

[Bojack Horseman]

In spite of some right-wing grandstanding, marriage licenses are available for same-sex couples in all counties in Kansas, however your marriage certificate is useless because Kansas still refuses to recognize same-sex marriages as valid.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2015/jun/30/most-counties-kansas-allowing-same-sex-marriage-li/

Meanwhile Louisiana is still waiting for the Feds to force them to recognize gay marriages, though SCOTUS already did that.

[user12345]

That's what you get when you reelect those clowns.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In spite of some right-wing grandstanding, marriage licenses are available for same-sex couples in all counties in Kansas, however your marriage certificate is useless because Kansas still refuses to recognize same-sex marriages as valid.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2015/jun/30/most-counties-kansas-allowing-same-sex-marriage-li/

Meanwhile Louisiana is still waiting for the Feds to force them to recognize gay marriages, though SCOTUS already did that.

Jindal thinks that SCOTUS is inferior to the 5th circuit court. Oxford may want to make sure Rhodes Scholars aren't dumbsh**ts.

[CountryClassSF]

Kansas stands up for state constitution against judicial tyrants. Every state should do same.

[Brittain33]

We've only just begun to live,
White lace and promises
A kiss for luck and we're on our way.
We've just begun.

Kansas will have to come around soon on this.

[Bojack Horseman]

Kansas stands up for state constitution against judicial tyrants. Every state should do same.

How have you not been banned yet?

Anyway, I'm not sure you realize that this:



...didn't work?

In fact, Ike had to do this to get Arkansas to comply:

[SteveRogers]

In spite of some right-wing grandstanding, marriage licenses are available for same-sex couples in all counties in Kansas, however your marriage certificate is useless because Kansas still refuses to recognize same-sex marriages as valid.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2015/jun/30/most-counties-kansas-allowing-same-sex-marriage-li/

Meanwhile Louisiana is still waiting for the Feds to force them to recognize gay marriages, though SCOTUS already did that.

Well at least it will only take one lawsuit to make Kansas comply instead of one per county.

[CountryClassSF]

When you compare lack of gay marriage on demand to school desegregation, all credibility is lost.

The 14th Amendment was written in the 1860s to protect blacks from slavery and was co-opted by court to confer a right that never existed.

[JerryArkansas]

When you compare lack of gay marriage on demand to school desegregation, all credibility is lost.

The 14th Amendment was written in the 1860s to protect blacks from slavery and was co-opted by court to confer a right that never existed.

Just like how the 2nd Amendment was written in the 1790's to protect the state's right to a militia and was co-opted by the right to confer a right that never existed*.

When we as a country have something called a living constitution, you are able to adapt the meaning of the words to your time.  This is what our founding father's wanted.  They wanted us to bend and twist the document.  They wanted us to think different from them.  They didn't want us to live by the rules of their time.

*(When I say this, I mean Automatic weapons, not handguns, or shotguns.)

[Bojack Horseman]

When you compare lack of gay marriage on demand to school desegregation, all credibility is lost.

The 14th Amendment was written in the 1860s to protect blacks from slavery and was co-opted by court to confer a right that never existed.

Nice try. We don't get to pick and choose what the constitution applies to. The 14th Amendment mandates that if a state is to grant a right, it must be applied equally to everyone. If it was only about race, it would have said so.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

time to send in the national guard

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

When you compare lack of gay marriage on demand to school desegregation, all credibility is lost.

The 14th Amendment was written in the 1860s to protect blacks from slavery and was co-opted by court to confer a right that never existed.

Just like how the 2nd Amendment was written in the 1790's to protect the state's right to a militia and was co-opted by the right to confer a right that never existed*.

When we as a country have something called a living constitution, you are able to adapt the meaning of the words to your time.  This is what our founding father's wanted.  They wanted us to bend and twist the document.  They wanted us to think different from them.  They didn't want us to live by the rules of their time.

*(When I say this, I mean Automatic weapons, not handguns, or shotguns.)

Who among the Founders wanted us to "bend and twist" the Constitution? 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

When we as a country have something called a living constitution, you are able to adapt the meaning of the words to your time.  This is what our founding father's wanted.  They wanted us to bend and twist the document.  They wanted us to think different from them.  They didn't want us to live by the rules of their time.

I simply don't believe this is true.

[Torie]

That is all about amending the Constitution, Jerry, not reinterpreting its text in new and creative and unintended ways.

[JerryArkansas]

It was, but, I still believe what I believe.  A living document is something which helps with the times.  How can the rules of men who lived over 200 years ago still apply to us without a bit twisting.  We have so many things that they wouldn't have know about.  Without the notion of a living document, it's hard to apply the laws, and write them.  Social Security and Medicare, are they mentioned in the constitution.  No, but with some interpretation, you can find the rational for them. 

[CountryClassSF]

When you compare lack of gay marriage on demand to school desegregation, all credibility is lost.

The 14th Amendment was written in the 1860s to protect blacks from slavery and was co-opted by court to confer a right that never existed.

Nice try. We don't get to pick and choose what the constitution applies to. The 14th Amendment mandates that if a state is to grant a right, it must be applied equally to everyone. If it was only about race, it would have said so.

Ok, time to expand conceal/open- carry to all 50 states.

[JerryArkansas]

Another example that I forgot to post above is Jefferson buying lands in Louisiana.  The constitution says nothing of buying land.  But he used the right to govern territory to defend his purchase of it.

[CountryClassSF]

With that standard, states that have enacted conceal or open carry laws based on 2nd amendment should be afforded across the country.

The left has to be consistent.

[YaBoyNY]

time to send in the national guard

[Bojack Horseman]

With that standard, states that have enacted conceal or open carry laws based on 2nd amendment should be afforded across the country.

The left has to be consistent.

Apples and oranges. That's something completely different.

[Torie]

It was, but, I still believe what I believe.  A living document is something which helps with the times.  How can the rules of men who lived over 200 years ago still apply to us without a bit twisting.  We have so many things that they wouldn't have know about.  Without the notion of a living document, it's hard to apply the laws, and write them.  Social Security and Medicare, are they mentioned in the constitution.  No, but with some interpretation, you can find the rational for them. 

The tax and spending power is right there in the Constitution. That one was easy.

[CountryClassSF]

Apples and oranges. That's something completely different.

Not based on the standard that many on the left are setting.  If a state is required to recognize rights conferred based on the Constitution, that's pretty cut and dry.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It was, but, I still believe what I believe.  A living document is something which helps with the times.  How can the rules of men who lived over 200 years ago still apply to us without a bit twisting.  We have so many things that they wouldn't have know about.  Without the notion of a living document, it's hard to apply the laws, and write them.  Social Security and Medicare, are they mentioned in the constitution.  No, but with some interpretation, you can find the rational for them. 

The tax and spending power is right there in the Constitution. That one was easy.

Doesn't the purpose of the spending have to fall within enumerated powers?

[Torie]

It was, but, I still believe what I believe.  A living document is something which helps with the times.  How can the rules of men who lived over 200 years ago still apply to us without a bit twisting.  We have so many things that they wouldn't have know about.  Without the notion of a living document, it's hard to apply the laws, and write them.  Social Security and Medicare, are they mentioned in the constitution.  No, but with some interpretation, you can find the rational for them. 

The tax and spending power is right there in the Constitution. That one was easy.

Doesn't the purpose of the spending have to fall within enumerated powers?

No, not really, as opposed to regulations, the spending power is close to an unlimited power is my recollection. SCOTUS has held that in certain situations, withholding funds to a state to influence the state's policies, that the Feds cannot directly dictate, can be deemed unduly "coercive."

[Adam Griffin]

Fortunately for all of us, the Founding Fathers did not leave behind an explicit set of instructions on how to exactly interpret the contents of the document hundreds of years in the future, so we all get to have fun arguing like a bunch of religious fanatics as to which belief is the Holy Truth. How about we just all admit that we interpret the Constitution how our narrow-minded views of the world dictate and leave it at that?